A renovated building in Midtown Atlanta has been awarded 95 out of a possible 110 LEED points for its environmental design-the highest score for any new construction in the Northern Hemisphere.

Though classified as a "New Construction" in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design system, 1315 Peachtree Street, Atlanta is actually a 1980s construction that has undergone extensive renovation. But what does LEED certification entail? And is this the greenest building in the Northern Hemisphere?

According to the architect, Perkins+Will, who are both the designers and occupants of the renovated building, a variety of technologies were employed to help achieve Platinum certification. A trigeneration system (providing electricity, heating and cooling) is foremost among them, employing gas microturbines on the roof generating both electricity and heat. Some of that heat drives an absorption chiller providing the building's cooling. Daylight harvesting and LED lighting are among the measures which have reduced the building's energy consumption by a claimed 58 percent from baseline figures. Rainwater harvesting has cut the consumption of supplied water by 78 percent. Both figures are well above that required to achieve maximum points in their respective criteria.

LEED essentially provides a collection of yardsticks next to which some of a building's green credentials can be measured. Eighty points are sufficient to win Platinum status in version 3 of the system, which has been in use since 2009, and is the version with which 1315 Peachtree Steet was scored. Platinum is the highest of four levels of certification, followed by Gold, Silver and, yes, Certified.

One hundred of the available points are spread over five categories with the largely self-explanatory titles Energy and Atmosphere (worth 35 points), Water Efficiency (10), Materials and Resources (14), Sustainable Sites (26), and Indoor Environmental Quality (15). An additional six bonus points are available for "innovation in design", and the final four are for "Regional Priority"—or measures that address localized environmental issues. One of the "innovation in design" points is available for the involvement of a LEED-accredited professional in the design—a point which has no direct bearing on the greenness (or otherwise) of the building at hand. A full breakdown of the points system, and an explanation of the criteria, is available on the US Green Building Council's website.

To achieve LEED certification, building owners must cough up registration and certification fees to the US Green Building Council, and provide documentary evidence of compliance with the scheme, which is verified by the Council. The process is purely voluntary, meaning that buildings with extremely environmentally-sound design may go uncertified. However, LEED-certification is increasingly being encouraged and even mandated at state level, and within federal agencies.

According to the US Green Building Council's Certified Project Directory, 245 projects have been assessed under the same system and category (LEED-NC v2009), and of those 25 have been awarded a Platinum certificate. So, of the nearly-10,000 projects LEED-certified in the US alone, 1315 Peachtree Street is only directly comparable to 245.

LEED 2009 places a greater emphasis than ever before on energy reduction, but is criticized in some quarters for not going far enough. A relatively whopping 19 points—the single biggest allocation—are available for optimized energy performance. In new buildings the full points haul requires energy savings of 48 percent in comparison to a theoretical baseline. By contrast the Architecture 2030 program calls for a minimum reduction of 60 percent, measured against regional averages rather than theoretical data. If buildings are now close to maxing out on the LEED scoring system, perhaps a general raising of expectations is merited.

Of greater concern is the suggestion that LEED-certified buildings do not always save the amounts of energy that is claimed. Savings are established by the building designer who measures the building design against a minimum requirement (ASHRAE Standard 90.1 - Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings). What that minimum standard specifically entails will vary from building to building, and is quantified by the buildings designer through computer modeling.

Doubt would be reduced by verification of certification based on real-world use once the building is occupied. An assessment based on design data would still be required (where final planning permission is dependent on LEED certification, for instance), but the status would be provisional. The technology is already available to do this relatively painlessly through the remote reading of meter data via the 'Net. Were LEED to adopt such an approach, there's no reason that LEED certification could not become a live status requiring maintenance over time rather than being the one-off badge of honor that it is. Financial penalties for design assessments that fall well short of the reality may help the problem of optimistic LEED assessments—if such a problem exists.

Though scorecards under older certification systems are available from the project directory, none for the 245 projects in 1315 Peachtree Street's category are. But without the documentary evidence used to establish the LEED rating, and real-world performance data to compare it to, the information that could be gleaned would be extremely limited in any case.

A LEED score of 95 points suggests that a building should be extremely environmentally friendly, but the only conclusion that can be drawn with absolute certainty is that its design is adept at passing LEED tests. In 1315 Peachtree Street's case, it, of all the buildings in the Northern Hemisphere, is the LEEDiest of 245.

The US Green Building Council has not responded to our request to see 1315 Peachtree Street's LEED assessment, and the architect declined to respond to our technical queries about the specifics of the renovation.

James Holloway
James is a contributing science writer. He's a graduate of the Open University, with a B.Sc. in Technology and a Diploma in Design and Innovation. Twitter@jamesholloway

44 Reader Comments

IMO, LEED is somewhat of a money grab. Sure some of it makes sense, but not all of it. I have heard an Architect state, "We'll be buying points on this project". To me this seems ridiculous.

Some sort of continued verification is definitely needed (as stated in the article). You can get a point for having a bike rack and showers, but if they aren't used or actively promoted then it means nothing.

I wonder what can be done to entice builders/developers to make more efficient buildings. I think it's an issue that many developers just want to make a building as cheap as possible because they want to sell it and not worry about all the future consequences: the cost of running it, maintaining it, and eventually renovating or recycling it. These things fall into the category of "somebody else's problem". In this case, the group was designing the building for themselves to use, so they obviously took more of a "big picture" approach.

IMO, LEED is somewhat of a money grab. Sure some of it makes sense, but not all of it. I have heard an Architect state, "We'll be buying points on this project". To me this seems ridiculous.

+++ Absolutely.

In fact, the article´s sentence: «Of greater concern is the suggestion that LEED-certified buildings do not always save the amounts of energy that is claimed,» should properly have been followed by the numerous tax deductions, credits, and other incentives that exist for buildings that certify. From the Wikipedia:

«Many federal, state, and local governments and school districts have adopted various types of LEED initiatives and incentives. [...] Many local governments have adopted LEED incentive programs. Program incentives include tax credits, tax breaks, density bonuses, reduced fees, priority or expedited permitting, free or reduced-cost technical assistance, grants and low-interest loans.»

In my office building, which is owned by a well-known national commercial real estate operator, and whose tenants are mostly legal firms, the scummy extent to which they have gone in order to achieve LEED Gold ex-post-facto is exemplary: They have an audiotape library they'll lend out to those who car pool. Oh yeah, I wanna know how many of the high-profile lawyers are going to exchange their SL550 or S420 for a minivan so they can get an audiotape. They have "special" spaces for "fuel efficient¨ cars. That's where all the MINI drivers park. And so on. They've just checked boxes for a building completed in 2003... and that got its LEED in 2009.

I must say that as a former resident of Atlanta, I am a little disappointed. This story has been posted for ~8 hours and nobody has made a Peachtree St joke yet. You know, because half the roads in Atlanta are Peachtree (something) Rd or St.

In all seriousness though, I assume this is Peachtree St. NE? That certainly looks like it from google maps.

Otherwise interesting article. I always thought that renovations weren't able to achieve these kinds of improvements due to the existing structural materials not being good enough but I was obviously wrong!

I wonder what can be done to entice builders/developers to make more efficient buildings. I think it's an issue that many developers just want to make a building as cheap as possible because they want to sell it and not worry about all the future consequences: the cost of running it, maintaining it, and eventually renovating or recycling it. These things fall into the category of "somebody else's problem". In this case, the group was designing the building for themselves to use, so they obviously took more of a "big picture" approach.

There is this magical thing that has been known to motivate people, it's called "money". If you, as a customer are willing to pay for it, they will happily build it.

If they collect rain water, does that mean they have a filtration system as well? I wonder how efficient that would be.

Rain water is classified as non-potable water, it's used for flushing and that's it.

It could also be used for cooling, irrigation or in any system where humans are not consuming the water. Recycling this "grey water" makes a ton of sense but sadly it seems few are embracing it.

Rain water (non-potable water) is not grey water. Grey water is from sinks and showers, that can then be used for flushing, then it becomes black water. Grey water requires dyes and treating, non-potable only requires signage.

Rain water (non-potable water) is not grey water. Grey water is from sinks and showers, that can then be used for flushing, then it becomes black water. Grey water requires dyes and treating, non-potable only requires signage.

Northern Hemisphere ?? LEED members include a number of countries south of the equator.such as Chile and Argentina, or is it just that the spin doctors working for the architects found a way to exclude other buildings with a better score.

Northern Hemisphere ?? LEED members include a number of countries south of the equator.such as Chile and Argentina, or is it just that the spin doctors working for the architects found a way to exclude other buildings with a better score.

It's just as (or more) likely that it's the LEED PR people, especially since they're the ones that have most ready access to that data. It's all about raising the profile of the LEED program... when you have someone who's just "won" something, it could spur competition from other people to try and "beat" them. And they'll all give their money to LEED.

Anyway, I don't think LEED is just about greenwashing, I'm sure there are plenty of participants who have a genuine interest in their buildings efficiency and "green-ness". But it certainly allows greenwashing for those who would take advantage of it. It's a step in the right direction, but there's plenty to criticize.

IMO, LEED is somewhat of a money grab. Sure some of it makes sense, but not all of it. I have heard an Architect state, "We'll be buying points on this project". To me this seems ridiculous.

+++ Absolutely.

In fact, the article´s sentence: «Of greater concern is the suggestion that LEED-certified buildings do not always save the amounts of energy that is claimed,» should properly have been followed by the numerous tax deductions, credits, and other incentives that exist for buildings that certify. From the Wikipedia:

«Many federal, state, and local governments and school districts have adopted various types of LEED initiatives and incentives. [...] Many local governments have adopted LEED incentive programs. Program incentives include tax credits, tax breaks, density bonuses, reduced fees, priority or expedited permitting, free or reduced-cost technical assistance, grants and low-interest loans.»

In my office building, which is owned by a well-known national commercial real estate operator, and whose tenants are mostly legal firms, the scummy extent to which they have gone in order to achieve LEED Gold ex-post-facto is exemplary: They have an audiotape library they'll lend out to those who car pool. Oh yeah, I wanna know how many of the high-profile lawyers are going to exchange their SL550 or S420 for a minivan so they can get an audiotape. They have "special" spaces for "fuel efficient¨ cars. That's where all the MINI drivers park. And so on. They've just checked boxes for a building completed in 2003... and that got its LEED in 2009.

In my office building, which is owned by a well-known national commercial real estate operator, and whose tenants are mostly legal firms, the scummy extent to which they have gone in order to achieve LEED Gold ex-post-facto is exemplary: They have an audiotape library they'll lend out to those who car pool. Oh yeah, I wanna know how many of the high-profile lawyers are going to exchange their SL550 or S420 for a minivan so they can get an audiotape. They have "special" spaces for "fuel efficient¨ cars. That's where all the MINI drivers park. And so on. They've just checked boxes for a building completed in 2003... and that got its LEED in 2009.

In my office building, which is owned by a well-known national commercial real estate operator, and whose tenants are mostly legal firms, the scummy extent to which they have gone in order to achieve LEED Gold ex-post-facto is exemplary: They have an audiotape library they'll lend out to those who car pool. Oh yeah, I wanna know how many of the high-profile lawyers are going to exchange their SL550 or S420 for a minivan so they can get an audiotape. They have "special" spaces for "fuel efficient¨ cars. That's where all the MINI drivers park. And so on. They've just checked boxes for a building completed in 2003... and that got its LEED in 2009.

I wonder what can be done to entice builders/developers to make more efficient buildings. I think it's an issue that many developers just want to make a building as cheap as possible because they want to sell it and not worry about all the future consequences: the cost of running it, maintaining it, and eventually renovating or recycling it. These things fall into the category of "somebody else's problem". In this case, the group was designing the building for themselves to use, so they obviously took more of a "big picture" approach.

FWIW, I'm an engineer doing HVAC design on buildings, a good portion of which are LEED certified nowadays. In my experience, the LEED certification is often owner-driven - they want a plaque on the front of the building that proclaims their commitment to green buildings, the environment, etc. Of course, on most military jobs it's a mandate, but in the private sector I've dealt with a church and a school, which are sort of proclaiming their greenness to their target audiences, but also with a couple office buildings, where the owner wants to be able to tell prospective office-space tenants that the building is LEED certified.

Does anyone know how the LEED certification compares to Passivhaus certification? Which is more strict?

I've only dealt a little bit with Passivhaus, but almost certainly Passivhaus is more strict. Of course, Passivhaus is generally for residences, I believe, and there are strict limits on how much energy can be used per square foot per year, with a big emphasis on massive amounts of insulation, really good glass, etc. In office buildings, though, you've got a lot more people per square feet, plus lots of internal heat loads from computers - so there's a certain amount of energy that you've *got* to expend to keep things reasonably cool. I'm still uncertain how well a Passivhaus residence will work in the southeast, though apparently one was built in Louisiana a couple years back.

Yep, LEED is way up there on the greenwashing spectrum. Put out some plastic bins for recycling? Points. Whether anyone recycles or not. Bicycle rack? Points. Etc.

That's true to some extent, but there aren't all that many points that can be obtained that way. To get a certification, you've got to have 30 or 40 points, of which a few are simple to get, like the examples you cited. Most of them, though, really require something to be done - like the points for reducing water usage . Hitting a certain percentage is a prerequisite, but that gets you no points - you have to be a little careful about how you spec faucets/toilets/urinals if you want to get a couple points, and if you want to get even more, then you need to look at rainwater or graywater harvesting - which is definitely not greenwashing. Energy efficiency usually falls on me, and involves making sure all the equipment is as efficient as possible, fussing at people for spec'ing high-wattage lights, etc. - and that credit usually brings in the most points of anything, as it should, I guess.